Phil, I think there is some merit in what you suggest though to be honest it depends on what you mean by "RAPID" science. My concerns are: 1) It will change the focus of the 2nd AO. This could damage our integrative work and reduce our ability to pull together a RAPID community 2) It could delay the AO -- the impact of this is that less Science will be done as more will need to be spent on the admin of the program as the program lifetime will increase 3) The 2nd AO is the last change that the SC have to steer the program -- by trying to integrate with Norway & Holland we make it more difficult. 4) Isn't FP6 the right place to get trans-euro funding? Perhaps we could have a 2.5 AO which has �3/4 Million funding (3 projects) that could be joint with Norway/Holland or other European funding agencies. . Philip Newton wrote:

Thanks Eric,

We could adopt the model you suggest, and I would welcome the viewsof others. The driver for going for more explicitly collaborativeproposals is the chance of getting access to matching money fromCREST, which could be up to several million pounds. The feeling isthat we are more likely to succeed with that if the nationalcommitment to a collaborative programme is more explicitly strong (iegenuine joint proposals). Moreover, it seems to me that collaborativework is likely to be stronger if there is an initial constraint towrite a single proposal (despite the 'success' of the NSF venture,even with a strongly focused AO, the US principal investigators had tohave arms strongly twisted to write their 'synergistic' proposals, asthey were deeply sceptical that anything could get funded through ajoint process).

Why these countries and not, for example, France, Germany.....? Well,we have tried to get other countries with strong profiles in the RAPIDscience area involved, but without success to date. But if we can pullthe CREST matching money out of the hat, it may be that we could usesome of the matching funds to lever in one or two more countries insome way. And then there is always FP6: even though WATCHER will notfly, there are two likely RAPID-relevant bids in the offing that weknow of.

I acknowledge that the science that RAPID would end up funding in thesecond round would be different (at about 25% level if we commit about25% of second round funds to the joint call). Presumably, this meansthat we will not fund the lowest quartile of proposals that we wouldotherwise have funded. But instead, we will fund other projects, andwith an additional 1.8M pounds (even w/o CREST monies), all addressingRAPID second AO objectives. The trick is to get the focus of the jointcall right, and then to follow that up to ensure that researchers fromthe three countries have an opportunity to write some high-qualityfocused proposals that enable us to fund some excellent andRAPID-relevant research. It is on this issue that it would be helpfulin particular to have the SC feedback I am requesting, on thestrengths of communities in these countries.

This sounds like a good attempt to get some coordination but perhapsadds a level of complication that might not be in the best interestsof RAPID. My concern is that the effect in the UK will be that werestrict a fair proportion of the second call budget to proposals thathave a Norwegian or Dutch collaborator. I am wondering why we wouldend up making one of our main drivers the need to collaborate withthese particular nationalities (there are several other countries thatmake at least as obvious a connection scientifically).

I'd like to hear the views of others, as this idea is new on me. AndI don't want to dampen the excellent opportunities for synergy thathaving a matched call could bring. But I do wonder if the end resultmight be merely to exclude some excellent proposals, or alternativelyto spawn some artificial and unnecessary quasi-collaborations. Can wenot find a model more like the one with NSF, where synergisticproposals scored well, and could be coordinated, but were not aprerequisite for the funding from each nation.

Dear Steering Committee,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The following information is not in the public domain, and out ofrespect for the concerned research councils should remainconfidentialuntil further notice.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For those of you present at the 2 June 2003 Steering Committeemeeting, you will recall that I was due to meet with representativesfrom the Dutch Research Council (NWO) on 20 June, to build on theinterest in RAPID they have shown throughout our programmedevelopment(e.g. NWO attended RAPID launch Town Meeting; Hendrik van Akenattended PIs kick-off meeting).

The meeting was a positive one, culminating in a proposal for theNWOto put up about 1.5M Euros for investment in RAPID-oriented science.The proposal is to identify a subset of NERC's second AO that is ofstrategic interest to NWO (probably thermohaline-related), and holdajoint call and evaluation for proposals jointly proposed between UKand Dutch researchers. The call would be part of RAPID's autumn 2003call (the Dutch delaying their plans by 4 months to fit in). Theprinciple agreed would be that we would be aiming to do jointly whatneither single nation would or could otherwise do, and that thenational programmes of both countries must benefit from thecollaborative work.

This proposal then gave me leverage to go to the Norwegian ResearchCouncil - whose funding rounds for NoClim have unfortunately nevercoincided with ours, despite Peter's great efforts - to offer them atime-limited opportunity, with a carrot of a chance (20%?) ofmatching money from the EU (through a marine-CREST initiative...).Happily, the Norwegian RC have made a strategic decision to find1MEuros to allow them to participate in an autumn call with us andtheDutch, on the same conditions I outlined above for the projectedbi-lateral with the Dutch.

Clearly there is a lot of detail to sort out; it will be morecomplexthan the NSF joint venture (though the fact that we have done theNSFexercise undoubtedly enticed). The joint call will need to be partofRAPID's second AO. I envisage that we'd put about 1-1.5m pounds ofoursecond call money up against theirs, and the idea is that proposalstoit would have to have investigators (PIs/co-Is) from at least two ofthe three countries. Each RC could fund only its own researchers(which will complicate...). It seems that both countries wouldeffectively be happy to use the NERC mechanisms, adding 1 or 2peopleto our SC for decision meetings (not necessarily as full members).

You may wonder why you have not yet been consulted on the jointventure, beyond being aware that we have continually been searchingfor joint opportunities at the RC level with Norway and Holland, toenhance the delivery of RAPID's science objectives. This is becauseevents have been rapid (this has all come together in the last 5weeks), and I felt we needed to get to a certain point of 'solidity'about what could happen first.

However, Meric and I would now welcome your views on how best totakethis forward, especially in terms of using your knowledge ofactivities in Holland and Norway to help identify the mostappropriatesubsets of RAPID's science objectives for the joint part of thecall.For example, in what areas do these countries have especialstrengths(e.g. intellectual, infrastructure, ongoing programmes/activities)that would help us deliver certain RAPID science objectives? Incasesyou identify, are you aware whether those areas are also (relatedto)strategic objectives in that nation's programmes?

I realise that entering into this joint venture with Norway andHolland will cause some complications, but if it is set up in theright way, then I am sure that the benefits to the programme, to thescience-area, and to those involved, will dwarf such inconveniences.If the attempt to secure 'matching' money through the CRESTinitiativesucceeds, then our flexibility and scope will be further enhanced.Please be assured that we do not underestimate the complexitieshere,and acknowledge that we need to plan the joint component of the AOvery carefully, provide support to allow joint proposals to bedeveloped, avoid the pitfalls of EUROCORES.... But with your helpandadvice, I'm sure we can considerably enhance the RAPID programme andthis science area through this venture.